^{page 5 note 1} B.S.A. xxviii. p. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 7 note 1} These are E 1*, E 30, E 31, E 32, E 33, E 35, E 44.

^{page 10 note 1} B.S.A. xxviii. p. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 15 note 1} The bearer might be the son (rather than the father (?)) of Ἀρίστων Ἀϕροδισίου one of the γυναικονόμοι in the year of Nikokrates, , B.S.A. xxvi. p. 165Google Scholar, 1, B 1 (β).

^{page 20 note 1} Perhaps we should restore his name in v. i, 128, l. 1, where Kolbe completes the two mutilated names as [Εὐδαμ]ίδας Σω[κρατίδα].

^{page 20 note 2} Ἀρίων may well be a member of the family, possessing Roman citizenship, to which belongs ᾿ Ιού(λιος)᾿Αρίων (v. 1, 1314 A, col. i. l. 4); this man might even be the son of the person who appears here as Ephor.

^{page 20 note 3} The numbering is continued from B.S.A. xxvii. p. 253Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 1} Perhaps Τιβ Κλ. ᾿ Α - - - -, in view of the abbreviation for Κλαύδιος on (6) being Κλ.

^{page 22 note 2} B.S.A. xv. p. 93Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 1} I owe much to Mr. R. P. Austin's help in deciphering this inscription.

^{page 24 note 1} In Attic Ephebe-inscriptions of the period A.D. 150–175 the name is not uncommon; cf. I.G. iii. 1029, 1032, 1122, 1124, 1128Google Scholar. It is, of course, quite common as a cognomen (e.g. Γ.᾿ Ασι.νιος Φῆλιξ, at Tegea, , I.G. v. 2, 26Google Scholar), and is often borne by freedmen (I.G.R. indices, passim).

^{page 24 note 2} It was pointed out by Tillyard, , B.S.A. xii. p. 388Google Scholar, note 2, that the letters Г ΑΙΟΥ in this passage are to be connected with Φίλιππος and not with the preceding word κάσεν.

^{page 28 note 1} Obviously not of νομοϕύλακες or βίδεοι. as he was πρέσβυς of each of these boards in turn (see his cursus, loc. cit.). On the other hand, ᾿Αρρτεμ[ισίου] is only a conjecture, and there are possible alternatives, e.g. ᾿Αρρτεμ[ιδώρου].

^{page 29 note 1} For the spelling of the nomen see Groag in P.-W. s.v. Sosius (No. 11), and cf. Cuntz, O., Jahresh. xxv. (1929), p. 79Google Scholar.

^{page 30 note 1} I.G. v. 1, 32Google Scholar.

^{page 31 note 1} In his commentary on v. 1, 32.

^{page 31 note 2} The omission of the Emperor's name, if the length of the lines is correctly restored, is not unlikely.

^{page 34 note 1} As also in No. 52, above. For the various ways in which Quintus was transcribed in Greek see Dieterich, , Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der Gr. Sprache (Byz. Archiv, i.), pp. 81 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 34 note 2} For local and domestic philosophers under the Roman Empire see Nock, A. D., Sallustius (Cambridge, 1926), pp. xix, ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 36 note 1} Cf. Schanz, , in von Müller's, IwanHandbuch, VIII. 4, § 783 fGoogle Scholar. The most convenient editions are L. Mueller and E. Kluge (Teubner, 1877 and 1926 respectively).

^{page 36 note 2} Chronographer of 354, Mommsen, , Chronica Minora (in Mon. Germ. Hist.) I. p. 68Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 3} Pauly-Wissowa, , Realencycl. iii. p. 1859Google Scholar, Nos. 17 and 21 respectively.

^{page 36 note 4} It was not essential at this date for a consularis to have been consul first, cf. Seeck, , Gesch. des Untergangs, ii. p. 60Google Scholar, and for special grants of such honours, ibid. p. 496 (note).

^{page 37 note 1} Not. Scavi, 1917, p. 22Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 2} Wiener Studien, XLV. (1926–1927), pp. 102–109Google Scholar. I am much indebted to Mr. A. D. Nock for a short summary of this paper and for some references bearing on the present inscription, and to Mr. Norman Baynes for further references and suggestions.

^{page 37 note 3} Cf. also No. 57, above.

^{page 37 note 4} For the problems of the relation of Caesar-worship to Christianity in the fourth century, see Brehier, L. and Batiffol, P., Les Survivances du culte Impérial romain (Paris, 1920)Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 1} I.G. v. 1, 551, ll. 10 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 40 note 1} Cf. No. 57, above, l. 15, and other references in I.G. v. 1Google Scholar, Index i.

^{page 41 note 1} For another Spartan victor at the Aktian games cf. v. 1, 661A. The present victor might possibly be identical with Δαμόνικος (<) who is a member of the Gerousia (?) in v. 1, 112, l. 5 (Hadrianic era), or, if not, might well belong to an earlier generation in the same family.

^{page 42 note 1} On the discovery of (c) in 1925, Mr. R. P. Austin shewed me that (b) joined it above. Robert has now drawn attention to the existence of the fragments here published in Rev. Ét. Anc. xxxi. p. 225 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 43 note 1} Rev. Ét. Anc. l.c. pp. 14 ff.; the references to Philostratus and other ancient authorities for this contest are there fully cited.

^{page 43 note 2} I.G. v. 1, 556AGoogle Scholar; B.S.A. xxvi. p. 212Google Scholar, No. 11 (= No. 55, above).

^{page 43 note 3} Robert also correctly anticipated the name of the dedicator, in place of Kolbe's suggestion [᾿Αριοτ]οκρατίδα.

^{page 44 note 1} I can find no parallel for this usage, though of course β and π and π and ϕ are often exchanged both in Imperial-age and earlier inscriptions and papyri.

^{page 44 note 2} ᾿Ολυν[πιονίκης] in l. 2 f. seems more likely than ᾿Ολύν[θιος].

^{page 45 note 1} Πάλῳ in reference to a class of gladiators based on proficiency is surely out of the question here. For the term see Robert, , Rev. Arch. xxx. (1929, ii.) pp. 40 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 45 note 2} I am indebted for some helpful comments on this inscription to Freiherr F. Hiller von Gaertringen, who incorporates in them some textual comments by Professor Wilamowitz and by Dr. G. Klaffenbach to whom he kindly submitted a copy of the fascimile. Mr. Edgar Lobel has also given me the benefit of his advice on the text.

^{page 47 note 1} Cf. I.G. v. 1, 720, 828Google Scholar; B.S.A. xxvii. p. 249, No. 37Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 2} L. 3 contains eight, and l. 4 seven signs, in ca. ·097; allowing for. 15 signs in ·195, thirteen should require ca. ·195 × or ·169 m.

^{page 47 note 3} Cf. δουρὸς ἀκωκή, Iliad, x. 373Google Scholar. But a genitive in -οιο ought not to appear in a Doric dialect.

^{page 47 note 4} Hiller suggests ‘ = κἠσχο[ν(?)] from καὶ ἔσχο[ν(?)].’

^{page 48 note 1} Cf. Diehl, , Anthol. Lyr. ii. p. 20, Nos. 25–28Google Scholar. For the dialect of Alcman see Buck, C. D., Greek Dialects (2nd Edn., 1928), p. 299 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 48 note 2} iii. 17, 2, ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ ᾷσματα Δώρια ὁ Γ. ἄλλα τε καὶ ὔμνον ἐς τὴν θεόν.

^{page 48 note 3} B.S.A. xxvi. pp. 250 ffGoogle Scholar.; xxvii. p. 176f.

^{page 49 note 1} The name Σώζουσα is found in many places, e.g. Attica, , I.G. iii. 3370Google Scholar; Boeotia, , I.G. vii. 483Google Scholar. For the fairly common name Εὐπορία cf. I.G. iii. 2002, 2685, 3162, 3163Google Scholar; I.G. vii. 1013, 1014, 2236, 2237, 2668Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 1} I have not traced this name elsewhere, but there seems no reason to doubt the possibility of its existence.

^{page 50 note 2} iii. 17, 6; cf. viii. 14, 7.

^{page 52 note 1} It is common in mythology (vide Roscher, s.v.), and otherwise seems almost (if not entirely) confined to Boeotian Orchomenos, cf. I.G. i.² 70 and 103Google Scholar; vii. 3175, 3180. In each case it is found alternating with Ποταμόδωρος, no doubt in the same family, so conceivably our fragment relates to a member of the same clan, if he is not a Spartan.

^{page 53 note 1} For ἔθνος = province see Preisigke, Wörterbuch, s.v. § 3.

^{page 53 note 2} I am indebted to Professor Hunt for the parallel πᾶσαν χρείαν τοῦ εἰρημένου στάβλου ποιεῖν, Pap. Oxy. 138, l. 28 f. (A.D. 610–11).

^{page 54 note 1} Except for a quite unimportant fragment of two letters only, the only other Latin inscription from our excavations consists of the numerous fragments of an inscription of monumental type from the Acropolis, which is referred to in B.S.A. xxviii. p. 46Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 2} If my suggestion for l. 1 is right, these would presumably be two different persons, since the Governor of the province would not be likely to style himself also corrector, their functions being normally distinct. The posts are, however, found combined by Claudius Demetrius, (M.), Inschr. von Olympia, 941Google Scholar (cf. Prosopogr. Imp. Rom. I. No. 681). For praeses = Governor, in a general sense, cf. Lewis and Short, s.v., and Mommsen's note in C.I.L. iii. 2, Index, p. 1130Google Scholar; for the abbreviation (of which no example is given in Dessau, I.L.S.) cf. C.I.L. iii. 223, 449Google Scholar. No example seems to exist of praeses being used to describe the Governor of Achaia at any date.

For corrector, and the various meanings of this title, see De Ruggiero, Diz. Epigr., s.v.; for a corrector prov. Achaiae, under Diocletian, C.I.L. iii. 6103Google Scholar. For ἐπανορθωτής (= corrector) see the list in Ruggiero, loc. cit.; for an example from Sparta, , I.G. v. 1, 541Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 1} Breslau, 1913. Thus for Ηαγηhίσοτρατος in l. 7, cf. Ἀγησίστρατος, op. cit. No. 17; for Ἀριστοτέλης, in l. 6, Nos. 136, 137.

^{page 56 note 1} Is it perhaps related to names beginning Ναρδ—?